Portfolio - RCFP

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is the nation’s leading nonprofit organization providing pro bono legal services to journalists and newsrooms. The organization offers legal representation, amicus curiae support, and free legal resources to protect First Amendment freedoms and the newsgathering rights of reporters across the United States.

Lauren interned with the Reporters Committee’s communications team during the summer of 2025. Scroll below to read a selection of her published work.

Inside RCFP attorneys’ fight for police transparency in Pennsylvania

In the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, lawmakers across the country responded by passing laws making it easier for the public to access law enforcement records.

In New York, for example, lawmakers repealed a decades-old statute that had shielded police disciplinary files, granting the public long-sought access to officers’ records. And in Colorado, lawmakers passed a law requiring the prompt release of “all unedited video and audio recordings” of incidents in which there is a complaint of officer misconduct.

“In a landscape that tends to be so bleak — delays and denials left and right — one good thing came out of such a miserable situation,” said Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Staff Attorney Gunita Singh, “and that was the law was changing for the better.”

But not in Pennsylvania.

In the Keystone State, a statute known as Act 22 governs access to video and audio recordings created by law enforcement agencies. Instead of promoting transparency, the law passed in 2017 forces requesters to navigate procedural hurdles that make it unnecessarily difficult for journalists and the public to obtain police body-worn camera footage and other recordings.

But that hasn’t stopped Reporters Committee attorneys, led by Pennsylvania Local Legal Initiative Attorney Paula Knudsen Burke, from taking police departments to court to challenge their refusal to turn over bodycam and dashcam recordings under the restrictive law. Over the past few years, Burke has litigated six Act 22 cases on behalf of local journalists and newsrooms, several of which are ongoing.

Three of those cases have resulted in settlements in which police departments have agreed to turn over bodycam footage. And earlier this month, a case litigated by Burke and Singh resulted in what appears to be the first court order granting a request to access police recordings under Act 22.

“Other states are moving in the direction of transparency and progress, and we’re stagnant, if not going backwards,” Burke said. “Despite the fact that it’s an uphill challenge, these lawsuits are worth bringing. As our recent settlements and court victory have shown, they can play a crucial role in shining a spotlight on the actions of law enforcement in Pennsylvania.”

Understanding Act 22

Before 2017, access to bodycam footage and other law enforcement recordings in Pennsylvania was governed by the Right-to-Know Law, the state’s primary public records statute that members of the press and public have long used to obtain government records. The passage of Act 22 created a separate, more burdensome, process for accessing bodycam recordings.

Under the law, requesters must submit a formal written request that includes an explanation of the purpose for seeking the video, something that is not required under the Right-to-Know Law. Act 22 requests must be filed in person or by certified mail within 60 days of an encounter with police.

Since 2014, Philadelphia has spent over $20 million on a bodycam program intended to promote transparency and accountability within the police department. But because of the barriers to access imposed by Act 22, Burke argues the program has fallen short.

“Why are we spending money on something that the public is paying for and doesn’t get to see?” Burke said.

Not only does Act 22 present physical challenges, forcing requesters to hand-deliver requests in a tight time frame, it also requires extensive detail in initial requests. By demanding specifics such as the date, time, location, and description of the incident, the law places an unfair burden on the requester.

“The whole reason people are seeking government records is because they don’t have all the information at the outset,” said Singh, who is litigating several Act 22 cases alongside Burke. “To put a burden on requesters that could potentially be insurmountable and making it harder to access government records is frustrating.”

Six Act 22 lawsuits

Burke’s push to litigate Act 22 cases began in 2021, just a few months after she joined the Reporters Committee.

That January, on behalf of journalist Hurubie Meko and LNP Media, she filed the first Act 22 case to be heard by a court in Pennsylvania, seeking access to police bodycam footage capturing a clash between protesters and law enforcement in Lancaster during demonstrations in 2020. The lawsuit led to negotiations with the district attorney, ultimately resulting in the disclosure of more than a dozen hours of police bodycam footage.

The following year, Burke helped The Patriot-News/PennLive and its reporter Charles Thompson reach an agreement with a local district attorney’s office that allowed Thompson to watch the unredacted and complete bodycam footage of police officers involved in the fatal shooting of a man who refused to surrender to police officers when they arrived at his home to serve a warrant for his arrest.

More recently, Burke and Singh have teamed up to bring additional Act 22 lawsuits on behalf of Pennsylvania journalists and newsrooms. In three cases — The Tribune-Democrat v. City of Johnstown, Nexstar Media v. Pennsylvania State Police, and Nephin v. City of Lancaster — Reporters Committee attorneys are helping newsrooms challenge Act 22 denials based on claims that recordings contained evidence related to a criminal investigation. The lawsuits argue, however, that redaction, such as blurring, is the appropriate way to handle exempt information, rather than withholding records entirely.

In Nephin, a judge recently ordered the city of Lancaster to release all police bodycam and dashboard camera footage capturing the controversial arrests of teenagers who were riding their bicycles on city streets in March. The ruling came just one day after Reporters Committee attorneys argued in court on behalf of LNP | Lancaster Online that the public interest in accessing the recordings outweighed the city’s interests in keeping them secret.

As LNP reported, it appears to be the first time a court has granted a request to access police bodycam videos under Act 22.

“The court’s order this week may be the first successful ruling on the merits of an Act 22 case in the state,” Singh told LNP. “But it won’t be the last.”

The court victory in the LNP case was followed by more good news in a separate Act 22 case Burke filed on behalf of the Centre Daily Times in October. In that case, the newsroom and its reporter Bret Pallotto sought access to bodycam footage from Pennsylvania State Police officers who were present during a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement action in Centre County that resulted in the arrest of 24 people.

Following the lawsuit, the state police agreed to turn over troopers’ dashcam footage of the immigration enforcement action. As the Centre Daily Times reported after obtaining the recordings, the dashcam videos “appear to verify the role and public statements of the state police,” which had said that its troopers did not conduct the traffic stops. The state police told the newspaper that because the troopers were not involved in the enforcement action, they did not activate their bodycams.

Litigating Act 22 cases is not easy. But Burke and Singh say the fight is worth it considering the public good that results from making bodycam footage available to local communities.

“Releasing bodycam footage isn’t just important to expose misconduct,” Singh said. “It’s just as important to demonstrate what police do right. That helps build trust.”

The New York Times Company v. Spears

In 2023, then-University of Alabama basketball player Kai Spears sued The New York Times for false light and defamation over an article in which Spears was mistakenly identified as a passenger in a car connected to a deadly shooting.

As part of the proceedings, Spears requested that the newspaper reveal the identities of the two confidential sources it had relied on for its reporting. The Times refused, invoking Alabama’s shield law and the First Amendment reporter’s privilege.

In briefs submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Spears argued that Alabama’s shield law does not apply because the news article was published in print and online, and the online edition is not a “newspaper.” Additionally, although conceding that the shield law provides absolute protection to newspapers’ and broadcasters’ confidential sources, Spears argued that it protects only a source’s name and does not protect the Times from being forced to disclose other identifying information about its confidential sources.

To help resolve the dispute, the district court asked the Alabama Supreme Court to weigh in on two questions: whether the state shield law applies to newspapers that are published online, and if so, whether the law protects against the disclosure not only of the source’s name, but also other information that would help identify the source.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by the Alabama Press Association and several news outlets, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to answer yes to both questions, arguing that a decision to the contrary would harm the public interest, weaken the press, and undermine reporting in circumstances that extend far beyond this case.

Alabama’s absolute shield law was among the earliest reporter’s privilege statutes and continues its historic protection for confidential sources.
The Alabama Supreme Court should hold that the shield law encompasses an article published online by a newspaper.
The Alabama shield law protects information disclosing confidential sources, and were it otherwise, it would not have the intended effect.

“Excluding those news outlets that maintain a website from the Shield Law’s protection would effectively write them out of the statute — and ignore the realities of the digital age.”

With free legal support from ProJourn, InvestigateWest scrutinizes Jehovah’s Witnesses child abuse policies

In 2022, an investigation by the nonprofit newsroom InvestigateWest exposed how Jehovah’s Witnesses had covered up decades of sexual abuse in Washington state.

The state’s laws pertaining to reporting child abuse, among the weakest in the country when it comes to clergy, had made it easier for the allegations to remain hidden. Following publication, the story prompted action from state lawmakers.

The news outlet’s investigation received free legal support from ProJourn, a program operated by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in partnership with Microsoft, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, that provides journalists no-cost legal help with pre-publication review, public records access, and newsroom operations-related legal needs, while growing the pool of pro bono attorneys trained in these areas. ProJourn connected InvestigateWest with attorneys from Davis Wright Tremaine, who provided free legal vetting before the news outlet’s investigation was published.

“We’re doing really in-depth investigations that could have legal consequences,” said Wilson Criscione, InvestigateWest’s news and investigations editor. “For us, it’s been critical to have ProJourn as a resource.”

In 2023, State Sen. Noel Frame introduced a bill that would require church leaders to report child abuse or neglect to authorities, even if they learned of the allegations during a confession.

“This legislation, I want to acknowledge, is a direct result of incredible investigative reporting by InvestigateWest that uncovered decades of child abuse being covered up by a particular faith community in Washington state,” she said.

The legislation stalled the first two times that Frame introduced it, in part due to resistance from Catholic lobbyists who opposed any requirement that priests report child abuse disclosed during confession.

However, the reform bill eventually passed, and on May 2, 2025, Gov. Bob Ferguson signed it into law.

Later that month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it was investigating the law, arguing that it violates the First Amendment. The DOJ’s statement echoed the concerns raised by Catholic lobbyists, noting that the law provides “no exception for the absolute seal of confidentiality that applies to Catholic priests.”

Criscione credited ProJourn with helping InvestigateWest produce investigative reporting that has the power to spark reforms.

“We couldn’t do the journalism that we’re doing without ProJourn,” he said.

Update: On July 18, 2025, a federal judge in Washington issued an order blocking the state from enforcing a new law that would have required clergy members to report evidence of child abuse learned during confession.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse